Hopes, worries of post-Trump world

(Link on Daily Trust)

As much as one tries not to bother unnecessarily about the United States politics, one simply cannot ignore it at least to the extent to which it directly or indirectly interests one and one’s primary audience.

Since the end of World War II, the US foreign policies, actions and inactions have always had positive or negative impacts on global economic conditions, peace and stability more than any other country. This is primarily thanks to its sheer military power and economic size, which remain the world’s strongest and largest respectively, and which it has always leveraged in pursuit of its legitimate and illegitimate interests. 

And until it’s outpaced and overshadowed by another country, which is inevitable since, after all, it isn’t the first world’s superpower and won’t be the last either, the US would continue to be the most influential country in international politics.

Until then, therefore, US politics including the identities and underlying philosophical inclinations of major players in, particularly, the White House, the Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), would remain of huge interest not only to the US citizens and residents but also to most, if not all, foreign governments and major multinational corporations, albeit to various degrees.

That explains why lobbying in Washington corridors of power on behalf of foreign governments, multinational corporations and international organizations remains a multibillion-dollar industry.

In addition to traditional US allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, many non-US allies like Russia and China, and even some purported US enemies like Iran maintain dedicated lobby firms in Washington who lobby for their respective interests. 

With the inauguration of the new US President Joe Biden last Wednesday, such governments and entities are already strategizing to secure US cooperation in pursuit of their respective interests. This is even though President Biden, unlike his predecessor, Trump, is already a typical Washington establishment politician, which makes him quite predictable in the light of his political antecedents over the decades. Yet, that doesn’t downplay the need to have a clear picture of his administration’s direction on various issues involving foreign interests especially after years of unprecedented unpredictability of the Trump administration.

Though the direction of any US administration is always primarily determined by the US strategic interests, the particularly inconsiderate approach of the former President Trump under his “America First” policy had made many foreign governments miss the pre-Trump America and wish that President Biden would revert to the status quo anyway.  

China, for instance, which has been particularly hit by Trump’s largely protectionist international trade policies is certainly pursuing an increased US commitment to international trade liberal policies under the Biden administration. 

Iran also, being arguably the worst-hit country by Trump would want to see the Biden administration reverting to the Obama era situation in US-Iran politics, for, after all, he was Obama’s deputy who supposedly played a key role in the formulation of Obama’s Iran-friendly policies in the Middle East.

Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran had devastated the Iranian economy after it had begun to recover following the ratification of the 2015 Nuclear Agreement between it, the US, Germany, France and Britain, China and Russia. Trump’s withdraw from the agreement rendered it effectively ineffective and signalled the beginning of America’s harsh measures against it that have significantly lessened the impetus of Iran’s geopolitical expansionist adventures in the Middle East.    

Even the United States traditional European allies would equally want to see the US back to its full commitment to their collective security under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the face of the Russian geopolitical ambition with its attendant security implications on the continent.

Former President Trump always blackmailed NATO member-countries for, according to him, not contributing enough in the organization’s budget leaving the US with the burden of protecting them.  He equally blackmailed US Far-eastern allies like Japan and South Korea and demanded that they pay the US for "protecting" them from the aggressive North Korean regime.

Other US allies elsewhere like the Arabian Gulf countries in the Middle East have equally been repeatedly blackmailed by Trump for “protecting” them from the belligerent Iranian regime on the other side of the Gulf. 

Now, notwithstanding the foregoing, President Biden is assuming office after exactly ten years from the eruption of violent protests that swept across many countries in the Middle East and North Africa purportedly to bring about democratic change.

However, the ensuing confusion degenerated into anarchy and bloody civil wars causing huge losses of lives and displacement of millions of people in addition to extensive devastation.  Some countries are still unable to even stop the wars let alone recover.

Given the roles that the Obama wing of radical democrats played in the instigation of that overwhelming chaos, there are concerns in the region that President Biden, being Obama’s deputy then hence supposedly involved in that strategy, may consider pursuing the same policy.

Already, beneficiaries who rode the wave of the protests to achieve their political ambitions e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood are particularly excited that the protests would come back now that Biden has been inaugurated. For instance, when, in the course of a chat I recently had with a staunch Muslim Brotherhood apologist Egyptian friend of mine, I referred to Biden’s appointment of some of Obama’s team members, he (my friend) couldn’t disguise his excitement that President Biden may end up adopting Obama’s Middle East policy.

Though people across the region have learned a lesson albeit the hard way, which makes the repeat of similar protests quite unlikely, it remains to be seen whether or not President Biden would follow the footsteps of his former boss, Obama, in his reckless determination to impose “liberal values” on nations regardless of their respective peculiarities. 

Politics of Ulama-bashing

(Link on DailyTrust site)

In northern Nigeria particularly, the increasingly intense philosophical struggle between “liberals” promoting outright westernization of the society, and the Ulama advocating the adoption of only what doesn’t contradict the society's value system features systematic and sustained Ulama-bashing, which has become a quite popular trend. 

For the sake of clarity, while the term “Ulama” refers to Muslim clerics in general, it’s used herein to specifically refer to those of them with a particular commitment to the promotion of the Pristine Islam as exclusively contained in the noble Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah according to the perception of the Sahaba and their successors. Because it’s such Ulama who are targeted the most with a view to discrediting and blackmailing them into a compromise on Islamic injunctions against Shirk, Bid’a and immoral worldly desires.   

Though, of course, none of them is infallible, for infallibility is an exclusive attribute of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), yet they, as a whole, remain the custodians of the Prophet Muhammad’s legacy, which underscores the sacredness their mission. They are, therefore, never beyond criticism; after all, sometimes some of them make inexcusable blunders thus expose themselves to concerted public bashing.  

Having said that, in most cases, the purportedly objective criticism against them suggests pre-existing prejudices and an underlying motive to achieve other objectives in disguise. 

The penchant of a typical Ulama-bashing northern Nigerian “intellectual” for vilifying them and exaggerating their shortcomings and faults is clearly driven by a desperate wish to undermine their credibility and frustrate their mission. 

Yet, on social media particularly, and apparently inspired by those “intellectuals", every attention-seeking northern Nigerian wannabe “wayayye” and aspiring “thinker” practices his “critical thinking" ability at the expense of the parts of the society’s value system he deems inconsistent with what he considers tolerance and modernity. Likewise, many an English language enthusiast seeking to improve his English writing ability practices on Ulama-bashing and vilification among other related things. 

Also, since the beginning of the current Buhari administration, northern Nigerian Ulama-bashing critics have excessively bashed the Ulama for their alleged hypocritical silence on the Buhari administration’s inexcusable underperformance in terms of the security situation in northern Nigeria. 

This is even though, the Ulama, both as groups and individuals, have never been silent as alleged; they have always spoken out in the course of their respective regular public lesson sessions and lectures in mosques and other places. They have always demanded that the government do all it takes to bring an end to the situation. 

Yet, a hate-filled Ulama-bashing critic who never attends such places nor follows their circulating video and audio clips would just accuse them of being hypocritically silent. In fact, many an Ulama-bashing dude would unearth or promptly shares -on social media- some maliciously unearthed previous video or audio clips of some Ulama speaking out on the security situation during the Jonathan administration in an attempt to prove the Ulama’s purported hypocrisy. 

Unfortunately, many gullible people have fallen for that hoax. Yet, it's even more unfortunate that even some otherwise respectable Muslim clerics who often get overly emotional when speaking out on the situation bash their fellow Ulama based on that unfounded allegation. Apparently, such clerics assume that speaking out on the security situation in the country should always be in an aggressive tone otherwise it’s tantamount to hypocritical silence. 

Now, while the Ulama should speak out on issues of public concern, they shouldn’t allow themselves to be distracted from their core Da’awah mission. They should ignore any public pressure on them to speak out unnecessarily on every topical issue. And even when they have to do, they should ensure the authenticity and adequacy of their information. They should also be realistic in their conclusions. Because, unfortunately, many otherwise discerning Muslim clerics often get carried away and end up making analyses, conclusions and even allegations based on unsubstantiated information they were clearly fed with by some people they trust, thereby exposing themselves to avoidable ridicule and possible prosecution. 

After all, there are people’s representatives at all levels of government who were elected or appointed and are paid from the taxpayers' money to not only speak out on behalf of their respective constituencies but to make a difference on the ground with innovative policies and appropriate implementation. So, if indeed the Ulama-bashing critics are sincere, their constant and relentless bashing should be primarily directed at those elected representatives and other public officeholders. 

Interestingly, the Ulama’s influence in the eyes of the authorities –if any- is actually extremely insignificant, contrary to what many among their respective followers and others assume. And though a typical Ulama-bashing “intellectual” realizes that, he deliberately implies and sometimes even asserts the contrary knowing that it would make it easier for him to convince the gullible that the Ulama are hypocritically silent being part of the beneficiaries of government largesse.